This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

The sad truth is, if Stallworth had killed a celebrity, even a crappy celebrity, in a DUI accident, THEN we'd see some outrage. Imagine the frenzy if the headline was "Stallworth kills Paris Hilton in DUI accident".

All of a sudden, I think we might see some outrage. It's the info-tainment aspect.

Well she is an important person.

"Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

If you ask me who the more immoral person was, I'd say Vick. If you said who did the more immoral thing, I'd say Vick. If you asked me whose action was more devestating, I'd say Stallworth. If you asked me whose act was more unlawful I'd likely say Stallworth but I honestly don't know the law well enough to tell you the difference legally between major interstate gambling charges and manslaughter. If you asked me which instance was sadder I'd say the Stallworth one, because yes, someone died.

I can agree with all of that, including the more immoral part. My issue is that, for me, all the things that make Stallworth's thing a bigger deal: level of devastation, more unlawful, sadder, make it something I have more issues with.

I myself have a DUI, luckily my accident did not end up killing anyone or actually involve anyone else.

I was devastated by the simple fact that I could have killed someone to the point where I decided never to drink again over it. In my case, I had a reaction to medication mixed with alcohol and blacked out. I never made the conscious decision to drive that day, and got lucky as hell that I didn't kill someone.

But if I had killed someone, I would have honestly wanted to receive the harshest criminal punishment possible for my actions. I would have deserved that degree of punishment had the worst case scenario occurred.

My views on the matter are consistent, even if applied to my own situation. What I would have done would have been far, far worse than what Vick did.

I would never have forgiven myself over it. So when I make my points on this, it is actually from Stallworth's position, had it applied to myself in my case.

Which this kind of goes to my earlier post about why, societally, Vicks was a bigger issue than Stallworth's would ever be.

Lets not even go with Tiger. Lets go with something comparable to Mike Vick. Lets go with Peyton Manning.

Vick, at the time, was arguably a top 5 name (name, not skill) Quarterback in the NFL. Peyton Manning is also a top 5 name in the NFL. If Peyton Manning ended up getting drunk and killing someone, I would almost garauntee it would get more media attention and have more societal impact than Donte Stallworth or Leonard Little.

If you want something sad out of this, I'd say this would be it....

Drunk Driving deaths have became so common place in this country at this point that it simply isn't a "major" news story when someone dies from it, because its not something unusual. That is sad. Its the fact of the unusual nature of Vick's crime that helped add to the societal interest in that case.

Instead of using a hypothetical, let's actually compare it to another top five name in a huge legal controversy. Ray Lewis.

There was a lot of outrage against Lewis after the stabbing in Atlanta. And it was totally justified. But it was less than what Vick got. Vick's thing got at least equal airtime, if not more, and had a far larger degree of outrage.

And what didn't get much airtime at all was the fact that Lewis' two friends, who he testified against saying they actually stabbed the guy, GOT OFF!

There is some degree of lunacy in that.

There is something inherently ****ed up in our country where Ray Lewis' incident is not seen as outrageous as Mike Vick's.

And unlike the Stallworth case, what Lewis was involved in was undeniably far more immoral than what Vick was involved in (even the obstruction of justice charge with regards to a murder is 100 times worse than dog-fighting and torturing animals in a moral sense).

It was way worse in every single respect.

But there is no real outrage anymore over the Lewis thing. But even AFTER Vick has served his sentence, we have people screaming that he should never be allowed to play football again. That's absolutely insane.

Agree with a lot of what you said, but I'd disagree with you on Rey Lewis. Its not a good comparison.

Rey Lewis is a big name, and a big time Linebacker.

He's not a quarterback or offensive player.

For example, the top 10 in February last season?

Eight were offensive players. (going 1 through 8)

Out of those, 5 were quarterbacks (and the top 4 consisted of that)

Two of them were Running Backs

One was a reciever.

The two defensive players in the top 10?

Brian Urlacher, who was in the second biggest market in the country.

Troy Polamalu, who plays for the team that's in the top 2 for fans residing out of their regional area.

If you spread it to the top 20 you'd find only 2 additional defensive players. Sean Taylor, who happened to have died the season before. And Bob Sanders, at number 20.

Lets look at some other years. 2001-2002 season, the year after Lewis's superbowl win? Urlacher, again, was the only defensive player in the top 10. Four QB's, 3 RB's, 2 WR's.

2005, when Vick was in the league....#2 behind Randy Moss. 2004, #2 as well.

Was having trouble finding info for 2003 and 2006 for some reason.

That said, Ray Lewis just isn't a good comparison.

I think that's what you're really missing in this. Just how BIG Mike Vick was. He was easily a top 5 name, not just in position, but flat out NAME in the NFL. He had endorsements everywhere. He was big the world over. That was part of why it was so big with him.

Originally Posted by MrWonka

In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.

I think that's what you're really missing in this. Just how BIG Mike Vick was. He was easily a top 5 name, not just in position, but flat out NAME in the NFL. He had endorsements everywhere. He was big the world over. That was part of why it was so big with him.

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your info? Jersey sales? What?

But you may have a point.

Maybe I'm viewing it from the point of view of a rabid football fan more than your average Joe. From the perspective of the average joe, defense is nothing. The rabid football luantic like me sees Lewis as one of the most recognizable names in all of sports because the 2 time NFL defensive player of the year and future hall-of-famer.

What is a "household name" to me may not really be comparable what a household name is to someone not as interested in football.

To me, Lewis is a bigger name than Vick, or at least just as big of a name. Manning is far ahead of both of them. Urlacher is about equal to Vick and Lewis in recognition factor.

But again, my view is skewed because I can sit and have a legit conversation with a Redskins fan on how I think it's bull**** that Russ Grimm and Art Monk are not in the hall of Fame yet . Your average football fan who is maybe ten years older than me could pull off a decent discussion about Monk, but very few will have a clue about Grimm (Guards aren't even on the radar when discussing famous NFL names. Also he and Jimbo Covert are the only offensive players who are on the first team 1980's all decade team that aren't in the HOF [Rice is obviously a lock]).

Anyway, I can see why someone like me may have a different view of "big names" when it comes down to the NFL. So I have to concede the point on that.

First, let me say you warm my heart talking about Old Grimmy. Though, thankfully, the attrocity that was Art Monk not being in the Hall of Fame has finally been rectified. Though its still a TRAVESTY that Michael ****ing Irving got in before him. Grumble

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your info? Jersey sales? What?

Yeah, Jersey sales. If I had access to past Q ratings I'd get those for you too. I'd almost garauntee you that Michael Vick had a bigger Q rating than Ray Lewis did at the time of his issue, and was closer to the rating of a Peyton Manning now than a Ray Lewis then.

But you may have a point.

Maybe I'm viewing it from the point of view of a rabid football fan more than your average Joe. From the perspective of the average joe, defense is nothing. The rabid football luantic like me sees Lewis as one of the most recognizable names in all of sports because the 2 time NFL defensive player of the year and future hall-of-famer.

What is a "household name" to me may not really be comparable what a household name is to someone not as interested in football.

To me, Lewis is a bigger name than Vick, or at least just as big of a name. Manning is far ahead of both of them. Urlacher is about equal to Vick and Lewis in recognition factor.

Trust me, I understand your view from a rabid football fan perspective. I'm much the same way as you. But part of the reason that Vick's thing was so big is he had recognition OUTSIDE of just your rabid football fans. He was a nation wide name not just in the NFL, but in College too. You had the "Mike Vick Experience" commercials for Nike running all over the TV. He was a household name, not just to the die hard football fans, but to casual fans and people that don't even watch much football.

That's where the difference is. That's why I say he's closer to a Peyton Manning than a Ray Lewis.

There are numerous factors why Vick's is bigger headlines than Stallworth's, as I noted in an earlier post. It is sad that those things all generally supercede the fact that a persons life was actually lost in the Stallworth case.

Originally Posted by MrWonka

In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.

First, let me say you warm my heart talking about Old Grimmy. Though, thankfully, the attrocity that was Art Monk not being in the Hall of Fame has finally been rectified. Though its still a TRAVESTY that Michael ****ing Irving got in before him. Grumble.

Good point about Monk being rectified. To me, the travesty of Irvin getting in before him seems to have clouded my memory to the fact that he is in now. My bad .

But I think you got my point more by Grimm than Monk.

From the rest of your post, I think we are basically in agreement. Especially with your last sentence:

It is sad that those things all generally supercede the fact that a persons life was actually lost in the Stallworth case.

I think that is really my main point and the source of my personal outrage.